Voters don't get to vote on everything
If voters can decide what happens with business (private) property, the same can hold true with residential (private) property.
Example:
Case Study: I Feel Sugar is Bad for Children
I can get enough people in a frenzy believing the same
I could probably find a couple of bad studies done by others who believe sugar is bad, those showing the bad affects sugar has on children. (Of course the outcome of the studies are predetermined as these people are just like me). Obviously, I won't use any studies that show the opposite findings. I'll be careful which studies I use and which ones I don't.
I feed the media (because I have money from Nootrasweet who will profit from a sugar ban and I have a few studies).
I prey on the fact no common person nor opponent of a sugar ban can read my studies; therefore, you must believe what I tell you, and why would I lie? I'm doing it for your children's good.
I actually get enough signatures to get it on a ballot.
In the meantime, Nootrasweet, who paid me to start this frenzy, buys the company that makes Splinda (They might as well corner the market on sugar replacement).
I get money behind me to advertise on TV saying that "53,000 children per year will die if they use sugar". (After all, I have a couple of studies few can understand and I have money behind me).
I next actually get a law passed not allowing parents to feed sugar to children under 16 year olds.
Probably most of the people who voted for this law didn't even have children under 16 but they decide this for you anyway.
Questions:
Should it matter that I got grants from the Nootrasweet people to pay for these "studies" and the media blitz?
Should I be allowed to pick only the studies that prove my point that sugar is bad?
Should I be allowed to create a ban that profits me and the people who paid me to get this ban passed as law? (You lose but who cares? I win and make a lot of money)
Should the Nootrasweet people, who paid me to start this frenzy, be allowed to buy up the companies who make the alternatives to sugar? Martha Stewart went to prison for less than that.
Should the voters be allowed to decide your family values for you even though they probably don't have children under 16?
Should I be allowed to create a public panic-induced campaign to impact what happens in your family? In your home? In and on your PRIVATE PROPERTY?
Should voters be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot do in your home?
I would hope your answers are all "NO!". So why was this allowed to happen to businesses when there is NO difference at all? The same thing happened to business owners in Ohio.
You'd be OUTRAGED that I took money from the people who profited by you losing the ability to raise your children how you see fit. What's the difference?
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is getting rich off the grants they paid out to the American Cancer Society to lobby for them to have smoking bans nationwide so their Johnson & Johnson company can make money off the nicotine replacement therapies and programs they have. If this were only about wanting to protect us, why did J & J buy Pfizer OTC Division in 2006 for $16.6 billion just to get Nicorette? It doesn't take a study to answer that question! By the way, they promised a per-share gain by 2009. JnJ posted a 40% jump in profit 1st Q. 2008.
With help from the American Cancer Society, through grant funding @ almost 1 million dollars to market nicotine replacement therapy and a $70,000+ grant to lobby Medicaid to pay for nicotine replacement therapy, the goal is in the bag.
Not 6 days after Issue 5 was passed by the voters in Ohio who voted, the Ohio Department of Health got a "grant" from the Robert Wood Foundation for $150,000.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.......
This page was last modified on Monday, July 28, 2008 04:52:37 PM